Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 4, 2021

Brown v. Google LLC

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:20-cv-03664
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Brown v. Google, Judge Van Keulen granted Google’s motion to seal specified portions of discovery-related filings.

Who this affects

Google and the plaintiffs were affected because the specified portions of their discovery-related filings were permitted to remain sealed.

What happened

In Brown v. Google LLC, Google asked the court to seal parts of the parties’ joint discovery letter brief and related charts.

The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials concerned a discovery-related motion. It found good cause to seal specified redacted portions involving Google’s internal identifiers and cookies, and plaintiffs’ private browsing details and personal email addresses.

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the sealing requests as to the listed redacted portions of Charts A, B, and C. The order did not address the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
May 4, 2021

Background

Google filed an administrative motion asking to seal portions of the parties’ April 23, 2021 joint discovery letter brief and related charts concerning class-member identification and plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

Legal standard

Court records generally are presumed open to public inspection. The court explained that the standard for sealing depends on how the records relate to the case. Because the information was submitted in connection with a discovery-related motion rather than a motion addressing the merits, the court applied Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” standard. The court also noted that the parties had to follow Civil Local Rule 79-5.

Ruling

After considering the motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the filings, the court granted the requests as to the specified redacted portions. For Chart A, the court approved sealing portions at pages 4 and 5 that described highly confidential and proprietary features of Google’s internal systems and operations, including types and functions of unauthenticated identifiers and cookies. For Chart B, it approved sealing the listed redacted portions on pages 13, 15–18, and 20–23 for the same type of confidential Google information. For Chart C, it approved sealing portions on pages 30–32 and 36–37 concerning details of plaintiffs’ private browsing and personal email addresses. The court stated that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect information maintained as confidential and not generally known to the public or competitors. The order was entered by United States Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.